Keating wrote: ↑
Just finished watching Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old documentary. Very moving. 'Enjoy' is the wrong word, but it did hold your attention.

I saw it in the theaters, which included 30 minutes afterward of Jackson describing how the film was made. He mentions one clip of a group of soldiers in a sunken road. All of them had panic on their faces, especially the one in the forefront. They were about to go over and Jackson says the entire regt was wiped out. Had that one tommy's face in my head for days.

Shit! I really wanted to like this movie... but... the history buff and engineer in me finds it to be unwatchable. I guess most movies have to have totally unrealistic battle scenes because everyone is watching fucking video games... and need a kind of spastic physical world. The planes pitch and turn at ridiculous rates.... they dive within a foot of their target (even flying under the tops of palm trees down a street). The density of the flack and the tracers is insane. It is all so comic that it makes me laugh. To bad. I loved Dunkirk.

John D wrote: ↑
Shit! I really wanted to like this movie... but... the history buff and engineer in me finds it to be unwatchable. I guess most movies have to have totally unrealistic battle scenes because everyone is watching fucking video games... and need a kind of spastic physical world. The planes pitch and turn at ridiculous rates.... they dive within a foot of their target (even flying under the tops of palm trees down a street). The density of the flack and the tracers is insane. It is all so comic that it makes me laugh. To bad. I loved Dunkirk.

In re military memoirs: I may have mentioned these recommendations before, but even if I did, they bear repeating. The best book about WW1 flying is a novel by a Camel pilot who was actually there in 46 Sqdn, Victor Yeates. The book is Winged Victory, and there isn't really anything like it. Even the foreword, written by the much discredited Henry Williamson*, is a wonderful illustration of Yeates' ability to grip the reader with the lines of a simple letter. His flight leader ('Mac') was Donald MacLaren, a far better candidate for Canadian glory than the likely fraudulent Billy Bishop. Yeates describes authentically all the aerodynamic quirks of the Camel, the nature of daily patrols over the lines in 1918, all the slang of the era (which has no translation in the book: ask me if you read it and don't understand), and the effects on each and every pilot of life under the circumstances resulting in 'Flying Sickness D' (which might have meant the TB from which Yeates died, the later descriptor 'Lack of Moral Fibre' or simply whatever current diagnosis was used for those who had had enough of war, be it shell shock, combat fatigue or PTSD). The book stands up as a worthwhile novel as well as a historical novel, or as a memoir. I wish I could write like that.

Two other writers were there too, and wrote about it, but they don't quite achieve the accurate pathos of Yeates, Duncan Grinnell-Milne wrote about his experiences in The Wind in the Wires, but only out of print copies available, and Cecil Lewis (not C.S.Lewis!) did something like it with Sagittarius Rising. All well worth a read, and even chasing down out of print copies.

*Williamson was the creator of Tarka the Otter, and later was faulted for his sympathies for Hitler and Mosely. He was so impressed with Yeates that the character in Winged Victory 'Tom Cundall' was present in his novel series 'A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight' and Yeates, in return, named the secondary character in Winged Victory 'Williamson'.

screwtape wrote: ↑
In re military memoirs: I may have mentioned these recommendations before, but even if I did, they bear repeating. The best book about WW1 flying is a novel by a Camel pilot who was actually there in 46 Sqdn, Victor Yeates. The book is Winged Victory, and there isn't really anything like it. Even the foreword, written by the much discredited Henry Williamson*, is a wonderful illustration of Yeates' ability to grip the reader with the lines of a simple letter. His flight leader ('Mac') was Donald MacLaren, a far better candidate for Canadian glory than the likely fraudulent Billy Bishop. Yeates describes authentically all the aerodynamic quirks of the Camel, the nature of daily patrols over the lines in 1918, all the slang of the era (which has no translation in the book: ask me if you read it and don't understand), and the effects on each and every pilot of life under the circumstances resulting in 'Flying Sickness D' (which might have meant the TB from which Yeates died, the later descriptor 'Lack of Moral Fibre' or simply whatever current diagnosis was used for those who had had enough of war, be it shell shock, combat fatigue or PTSD). The book stands up as a worthwhile novel as well as a historical novel, or as a memoir. I wish I could write like that.

Two other writers were there too, and wrote about it, but they don't quite achieve the accurate pathos of Yeates, Duncan Grinnell-Milne wrote about his experiences in The Wind in the Wires, but only out of print copies available, and Cecil Lewis (not C.S.Lewis!) did something like it with Sagittarius Rising. All well worth a read, and even chasing down out of print copies.

*Williamson was the creator of Tarka the Otter, and later was faulted for his sympathies for Hitler and Mosely. He was so impressed with Yeates that the character in Winged Victory 'Tom Cundall' was present in his novel series 'A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight' and Yeates, in return, named the secondary character in Winged Victory 'Williamson'.

Graves' "Goodbye to all That" was, until recently, only available in the later, sanitized-to-avoid-libel-suits edition, but the original edition is now available. Both editions have a fair degree of exaggeration - Graves openly stated that he wrote it to make a lot of money, and, as Spike MIlligan put it, he "jazzed it up a little." Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger is a great memoir from the Hun perspective, while Under Fire by Henri Barbusse rounds out the Western Front experience by presenting a Froggie viewpoint.

screwtape wrote: ↑
In re military memoirs: I may have mentioned these recommendations before, but even if I did, they bear repeating. The best book about WW1 flying is a novel by a Camel pilot who was actually there in 46 Sqdn, Victor Yeates. The book is Winged Victory, and there isn't really anything like it. Even the foreword, written by the much discredited Henry Williamson*, is a wonderful illustration of Yeates' ability to grip the reader with the lines of a simple letter. His flight leader ('Mac') was Donald MacLaren, a far better candidate for Canadian glory than the likely fraudulent Billy Bishop. Yeates describes authentically all the aerodynamic quirks of the Camel, the nature of daily patrols over the lines in 1918, all the slang of the era (which has no translation in the book: ask me if you read it and don't understand), and the effects on each and every pilot of life under the circumstances resulting in 'Flying Sickness D' (which might have meant the TB from which Yeates died, the later descriptor 'Lack of Moral Fibre' or simply whatever current diagnosis was used for those who had had enough of war, be it shell shock, combat fatigue or PTSD). The book stands up as a worthwhile novel as well as a historical novel, or as a memoir. I wish I could write like that.

Two other writers were there too, and wrote about it, but they don't quite achieve the accurate pathos of Yeates, Duncan Grinnell-Milne wrote about his experiences in The Wind in the Wires, but only out of print copies available, and Cecil Lewis (not C.S.Lewis!) did something like it with Sagittarius Rising. All well worth a read, and even chasing down out of print copies.

*Williamson was the creator of Tarka the Otter, and later was faulted for his sympathies for Hitler and Mosely. He was so impressed with Yeates that the character in Winged Victory 'Tom Cundall' was present in his novel series 'A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight' and Yeates, in return, named the secondary character in Winged Victory 'Williamson'.

Gustav Hasford's The Short-Timers is my personal favorite. Full Metal Jacket is based on it, but it's really quite different from the movie.

Damn. My french exchange family recommended that to me in the Paris airport as airplane reading on my way home when I was 14. Blew me away. Ever since, I keep two copies so I have one to give away because I've given away dozens and everyone I give it -- including several girlfriends and the latest my brother-in-law last xmas -- to ends up raving and recommending it to others.

YouTube is wiping out, without pre-warning, any video referencing the whistle-blowers name. The one previously spread thru MSM. The now public figure. The dude at the centre of the current biggest story.

Cause that’s useful and appropriate for a platform rather than a publisher ....

Matt and Blonde had their Wednesday show nuked into perma-private mode. So they came back today with a ‘xxxx is not the whistler-blower’ tee shirt and fan picture background.

And got nuked 20 mins in.

They came back on a backup, continued their defiance and so far still draw breath.

Quite similar to Boomer Giuliani butt-dialing a journalist-- talking about how someone named "Charles" doesn't have a strong fraud case/ because Charles didn't do due-dilligence. What's that about? Well... Giuliani's cronies are accused of ripping-off a guy named Charles-- for a half-million dollars-- in a fraudulent investment scheme.
Also-- more Boomer-dom-- a millennial instagram-influencer wannabe-reality-tv pot-vendor... appears to be a central figure in Giuliani being exposed:https://www.salon.com/2019/11/10/who-is ... -identity/

YouTube is wiping out, without pre-warning, any video referencing the whistle-blowers name. The one previously spread thru MSM. The now public figure. The dude at the centre of the current biggest story.

Cause that’s useful and appropriate for a platform rather than a publisher ....

Matt and Blonde had their Wednesday show nuked into perma-private mode. So they came back today with a ‘xxxx is not the whistler-blower’ tee shirt and fan picture background.

And got nuked 20 mins in.

They came back on a backup, continued their defiance and so far still draw breath.

It doesn't make much sense does it. If I had to guess I'd say it was because the whistleblower has a partisan history (which is true) and/or it's an attempt to maintain the threat narrative as in he's in physical danger from the evil Trumpers.

It's hard to get over prejudices. I don't care for Farage, who comes across as the classic sheepskin-coated secondhand car salesman. On the other hand, I don't see anything worthwhile for the UK if there is any form of pseudo-Brexit , so I have to applaud him for doing this.

Hardly any sappy or hokey moments, and that mostly justifiable exposition of young men, many with families, going into a very dangerous and likely -- especially that day -- fatal situation. The human element was shown for both Americans and Japanese, sometimes quite subtly yet powerfully. A few muted yet evocative mirroring of Japanese and American experiences and actions. None of the actors portraying the famous commanders go over the top; they do just fine. For better or worse, Yamamoto is depicted as tragic Hamlet type.

Visuals were very striking, especially when contrasting how small the planes were and how big the ships -- and how really big the ocean. The pilots' views of the dive bomb runs were stunning. Overall, SFX were near-perfectly realistic. (My GF asked how the planes taking off were filmed and was shocked when I told her it was all on a computer.)

The storyline kept close to historical events. Begins with Pearl Harbor, which sets the state of mind and strategic situation so Midway can be seen in perspective. IMO, a bit too much time spent on individual sailors at Pearl. Same for the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, though the sight of those B-25s on the carrier deck when no way in hell should they be on a carrier deck, was awesome. (I say this as someone who's been on two carrier decks and recently stood way too close to a taxiing B-25 at an air show.) Fortunately, Aaron Eckhart as Doolittle was not given enough lines for him to turn in his usual clunker of a performance. Dallying on director John Ford's presence on Midway during the battle was a distraction that added nothing.

Despite those complaints above, pacing was good, with sufficient down time interspersed with intense, chaotic battle scenes. (The GF reported extensive goosebumps and sweaty palms from the combat scenes.) The attacks on the first three Japanese carriers is presented near real-time, that is, in about eight minutes, and is just nuts. The decision to omit the attack on Yorktown, however, was puzzling, especially given the time spent on the Tokyo Raid digression. IMO, showing Yorktown's fate would've served as a poignant mirror to that of the Japanese carriers.

Minor quibble: it was impossible to tell who was flying off of which carrier.

Big disappointment: NO WILDCATS. Yes, we get a glimpse of Buffaloes taking off, but otherwise, you'd come away from the film thinking the Americans had no fighter planes in the Pacific that day.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑Wasn't that decided years ago to be pretty much confected from boyish dreams of war?

No idea although I've read conflicting opinions on the events in the book. All I know is it's a gripping read and very accurately describes the mindset of a soldier.

Have you read it?

Yes, quite a few years ago and I loved it. I went through a phase of Sven Hassel, Leo Kessler, and this which I thought was a more autobiographical choice But I read since that it wasn't really his own experiences, which cheapened it a bit for me.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: ↑Wasn't that decided years ago to be pretty much confected from boyish dreams of war?

No idea although I've read conflicting opinions on the events in the book. All I know is it's a gripping read and very accurately describes the mindset of a soldier.

Have you read it?

Yes, quite a few years ago and I loved it. I went through a phase of Sven Hassel, Leo Kessler, and this which I thought was a more autobiographical choice But I read since that it wasn't really his own experiences, which cheapened it a bit for me.

Don Cherry is a cheerleader for dimwits and has been for decades. He was a crappy player that lucked out with a job coaching a good team for a few years. It was largely the moronic drivel from losers like him that soured me on appreciating hockey.
Hockey great my hemmorhoid. :naughty:

Back when Cherry was coaching the Bruins, you could still go to the Garden the day before a game and buy Stanley Cup finals tickets against the Habs, maybe behind a post. Smallest sheet of ice in the league vs the biggest one up there where Guy Lafleur would skate rings around us. Now I feel old.

A dear friend recently passed away: the person whose permanently wooish beliefs first drove me to web fora circa 2010 in search of coping mechanisms. I found JREF, which I now like to call JERF, and that seemed to help for a while, and then a few years later I bumbled over here. I'm friendly with people who claim alien encounters, angelic encounters, mysterious water that emits energy that can be felt only by the pure in heart. perfessor whooppee who invented it.

fuzzy wrote: ↑
A dear friend recently passed away: the person whose permanently wooish beliefs first drove me to web fora circa 2010 in search of coping mechanisms. I found JREF, which I now like to call JERF, and that seemed to help for a while, and then a few years later I bumbled over here. I'm friendly with people who claim alien encounters, angelic encounters, mysterious water that emits energy that can be felt only by the pure in heart. perfessor whooppee who invented it.

My ex-wife was a woo-merchant of the highest order - angels (even though she was atheist, figure that one out!), out of body experiences, ghosts, the whole shooting match. My favourite holy cow to slay was fortune telling; I'd routinely end up in the doghouse for ripping it to shreds. No sex for a few days? Worth it to watch the cogs turn behind her eyes as she attempted to validate her batshittery.

Hardly any sappy or hokey moments, and that mostly justifiable exposition of young men, many with families, going into a very dangerous and likely -- especially that day -- fatal situation. The human element was shown for both Americans and Japanese, sometimes quite subtly yet powerfully. A few muted yet evocative mirroring of Japanese and American experiences and actions. None of the actors portraying the famous commanders go over the top; they do just fine. For better or worse, Yamamoto is depicted as tragic Hamlet type.

Visuals were very striking, especially when contrasting how small the planes were and how big the ships -- and how really big the ocean. The pilots' views of the dive bomb runs were stunning. Overall, SFX were near-perfectly realistic. (My GF asked how the planes taking off were filmed and was shocked when I told her it was all on a computer.)

The storyline kept close to historical events. Begins with Pearl Harbor, which sets the state of mind and strategic situation so Midway can be seen in perspective. IMO, a bit too much time spent on individual sailors at Pearl. Same for the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, though the sight of those B-25s on the carrier deck when no way in hell should they be on a carrier deck, was awesome. (I say this as someone who's been on two carrier decks and recently stood way too close to a taxiing B-25 at an air show.) Fortunately, Aaron Eckhart as Doolittle was not given enough lines for him to turn in his usual clunker of a performance. Dallying on director John Ford's presence on Midway during the battle was a distraction that added nothing.

Despite those complaints above, pacing was good, with sufficient down time interspersed with intense, chaotic battle scenes. (The GF reported extensive goosebumps and sweaty palms from the combat scenes.) The attacks on the first three Japanese carriers is presented near real-time, that is, in about eight minutes, and is just nuts. The decision to omit the attack on Yorktown, however, was puzzling, especially given the time spent on the Tokyo Raid digression. IMO, showing Yorktown's fate would've served as a poignant mirror to that of the Japanese carriers.

Minor quibble: it was impossible to tell who was flying off of which carrier.

Big disappointment: NO WILDCATS. Yes, we get a glimpse of Buffaloes taking off, but otherwise, you'd come away from the film thinking the Americans had no fighter planes in the Pacific that day.

Cheers. Would like something I should use my birthday cinema max tickets on.

BBC History Extra podcast (recommended) just released an episode interviewing the director. The BBC girl, usually busy grilling historians on their latest book, learns quickly to keep the conversation on the movie and not the history. But you do get to find out why dive bombing took centre stage over Wildcats.

I remember the book of the 1977 or ‘78 movie transfixed me in 5th or 6th class. It was like a full form war comic. Shifted my attention from the Bismarck to the Akagi et al. Changed my modelling focus from Airfix to strange Japanese brands and opened up a new history genre. So happy memories.

PZ and associated worthless dipshits are using the fruits of capitalist innovation to bash capitalist innovation. Personally, while I am neither a great fan not a great critic of Microsoft, I appreciate that for less than $50 of the cost of a new computer I get a very powerful and reliable OS that is the result of man-centuries (if not man-millennia) of development. I consider it more than a fair exchange and do not begrudge Gates one cent of his wealth.

It is mesmerizing to watch losers like PZ, who has never produced anything of value in his life, constantly berate those who have actually accomplished something.

Hardly any sappy or hokey moments, and that mostly justifiable exposition of young men, many with families, going into a very dangerous and likely -- especially that day -- fatal situation. The human element was shown for both Americans and Japanese, sometimes quite subtly yet powerfully. A few muted yet evocative mirroring of Japanese and American experiences and actions. None of the actors portraying the famous commanders go over the top; they do just fine. For better or worse, Yamamoto is depicted as tragic Hamlet type.

Visuals were very striking, especially when contrasting how small the planes were and how big the ships -- and how really big the ocean. The pilots' views of the dive bomb runs were stunning. Overall, SFX were near-perfectly realistic. (My GF asked how the planes taking off were filmed and was shocked when I told her it was all on a computer.)

The storyline kept close to historical events. Begins with Pearl Harbor, which sets the state of mind and strategic situation so Midway can be seen in perspective. IMO, a bit too much time spent on individual sailors at Pearl. Same for the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, though the sight of those B-25s on the carrier deck when no way in hell should they be on a carrier deck, was awesome. (I say this as someone who's been on two carrier decks and recently stood way too close to a taxiing B-25 at an air show.) Fortunately, Aaron Eckhart as Doolittle was not given enough lines for him to turn in his usual clunker of a performance. Dallying on director John Ford's presence on Midway during the battle was a distraction that added nothing.

Despite those complaints above, pacing was good, with sufficient down time interspersed with intense, chaotic battle scenes. (The GF reported extensive goosebumps and sweaty palms from the combat scenes.) The attacks on the first three Japanese carriers is presented near real-time, that is, in about eight minutes, and is just nuts. The decision to omit the attack on Yorktown, however, was puzzling, especially given the time spent on the Tokyo Raid digression. IMO, showing Yorktown's fate would've served as a poignant mirror to that of the Japanese carriers.

Minor quibble: it was impossible to tell who was flying off of which carrier.

Big disappointment: NO WILDCATS. Yes, we get a glimpse of Buffaloes taking off, but otherwise, you'd come away from the film thinking the Americans had no fighter planes in the Pacific that day.

I enjoyed it, though it's a by the numbers war movie. CGI looked cheap in places. Was pleasantly surprised no one had been race/gender swapped, nor have I seen articles decrying its whiteness as I did when Dunkirk came out.

Mookie wrote: ↑
Personally, while I am neither a great fan not a great critic of Microsoft, I appreciate that for less than $50 of the cost of a new computer I get a very powerful and reliable OS that is the result of man-centuries (if not man-millennia) of development. I consider it more than a fair exchange and do not begrudge Gates one cent of his wealth.

Innovation, creativity, and risk-taking need to be reasonably rewarded.

It's still fair to note that:
1) The obscene levels of wealth we now see in no way yield commensurate levels of incentives for innovation;
2) Gates obscene level of wealth in particular is the result of him running a near-monopoly first for an OS someone else 'innovated' & who Gates fleeced for $50k, then the shell for that OS which was a shoddy simulacrum of someone else's (XPARC's) innovation;
3) Said near-monopoly immensely stifled innovation in software development for decades.

Curiously, many of the very high-tech billionaires (Gates excluded) whose wealth Lizzie Warren wishes to tax at an effective 150% rate, are some of her biggest donors:

fuzzy wrote: ↑
Back when Cherry was coaching the Bruins, you could still go to the Garden the day before a game and buy Stanley Cup finals tickets against the Habs, maybe behind a post. Smallest sheet of ice in the league vs the biggest one up there where Guy Lafleur would skate rings around us. Now I feel old.

I'm even older. Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito vs Beliveau and LaMare. The best years of the rivalry. It was talent versus talent and free wheeling.

Heavy.com wrote:The name itself probably dates back about a thousand years and has been used in Latin literature. It’s historically been used to describe remote, hard to reach places.

But in the twentieth century, the name became associated with White Supremacists and Nazis. In Hitler Germany, members of the Nazi Party started talking about an imagined land of Aryan purity which they called Ultima Thule. The name still carries Nazi associations. A Swedish rock band with links to neo-Nazis named itself Ultima Thule. And a group of white supremacists in Portland, Oregon produced a newspaper full of racist, anti semitic articles which they called Thule.

Alan Stern, the lead scientist on the New Horizons mission, said that NASA wanted to reclaim the ancient name: "... the term Ultima Thule—which is very old, many centuries old, possibly over 1,000 years old—is a wonderful meme for exploration. And that’s why we chose it. And I would say that just because some bad guys once liked the term, we’re not going to let them hijack it.”

Oh, you silly, unwoke scientist.

USAF, no doubt, will soon be renaming Thule AFB the Inuit word for 'seal intestines'.

A white man who started a chain of very successful charter schools that cater to a mostly black student body has been fired from his CEO position for white supremacy. What constitutes white supremacy? His support for tradition book learning over modern educational woo. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/601696/

Jesus fucking Christ.... My wife is watching shitty police procedural shows... and fuck... I can't stand them. They are like a weird detective fantasy, but presented as reality... and my wife thinks they are accurate... and I'm like..... who wrote this fucking shit?

and this particular show has the following features.... 1) all the "bad" people are white. 2) any "bad" people who are black where made that way by Christians and white people. 3) The good cops don't use any of the real tools to go after the crooked cops... so shit happens... like the crooked cops actually kidnap a witness... and I'm like... where are the Feds? Are you fucking kidding me? The bad cops who are known by the good cops are not under surveillance and can just kidnap a witness....... whatever?

I just hate police procedural I guess. Too bad my wife loves them. (and... her sciatica is acting up so she is being a total bitch to me tonight... god how I suffer). Haha.

To top it off I started working at the General Motors Tech Center in Warren MI. Some fucking genius decided the work areas had to be shared spaces. You are told not to sit in the same space every day (except for the women who are administrative assistants.. they get to be squatters on the same desk every day). So the rest of us engineers pick a place to sit in some big space every day. It is like every day at work is a camping trip. You have to carry everything with you. And, since I am the new guy, no one knows me and I can't learn who anyone is unless I just walk up and ask... like ... "Gee wizz... I am the new guy... and what is your name.... and gee wizz... it is so nice to meet you." Fucking hell. Everyone at GM that I talk to about this setup hate it. Fucking HR sociologist bull shit peddlers.

Islam is right about women. That is all you need to know. Now there might be some notable exceptions ... I can think of a few myself ... but overall the world could be a much safer place for peoplekind.

It saddens me that Britain isn't in a state of revolt. Brexit is not going to undo the police state or result in a government which takes heed of public concerns over immigration. In fact the Conservatives are proposing things which may actually make the immigration problem worse. How can people not see what is going on? Labour deliberately flooded London with migrants and those migrants are now using their political influence to crush opposition to mass migration. Not only that, it is now effectively a crime to insult Islam. How can Britons witness arrests like this and not understand that their country is descending into tyranny? I don't understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZWuj2_xylI

The normalisation of things that were recently considered ridiculous is a worrisome thing. The concept of open borders being the pertinent example here. It seems perfectly reasonable that a nation ought to have the right to decide who it accepts from abroad for permanent residency and or citizenship, but there is a growing clamour from the thoughtlessly woke that borders should not exist, probably to aid in the destruction of the status quo and to erase the hegemony of whiteness. Even if that were a desirable end, it were best achieved in a gradual evolutionary fashion rather than by sudden revolution. We know that continuing population growth is linked to economic growth. If you can't achieve it the old fashioned way, you can simulate it with immigration. It seems obvious that picking smart, motivated immigrants would be better than having no choice in the matter. Worst of all would be to have migrants who simply come to enjoy your welfare state with little or no intention of either contributing or assimilating. The UK has found itself the most desirable place to reside in the EU, and has no say in the acceptance or refusal with regard to the free movement of the peoples of the former soviet satellite sates of eastern Europe, nor of those from the economic basket cases of southern Europe. Add in an enormous liability to admit citizens of Commonwealth countries, and taking a share of the refugees encouraged to come by Angela Merkel and there is a real issue. Cap it off with the ideologically driven choice by the Blair government to open the floodgates to "rub the Tories' noses in diversity" (and presumably win themselves a new and loyal voter base) and you have cut the fuze on this particular powder keg very short.
I believe the UK government finds itself in an awkward spot as a result. It has to crack down on any expression of dissatisfaction with this situation or face civil unrest. The race riots in Brixton, Toxteth and Broadwater Farm were shocking to the public, and made governments look foolish, disconnected and uncaring in various degrees. And they were the result of anger within the generally well-assimilated and hard-working West Indian immigrant population. What will it look like when unassimilated, more-numerous members of another culture that prefers its own laws and customs riot? People who are now a majority in many northern and midland towns, and a small minority of them have a reputation for going well beyond a little riot when they want to make a point. There simply aren't enough police in the whole country to quell that, and the costs, financial and social, would be unimaginable. Hence no criticism allowed, however reasonable. Hence the cowardly refusal to provide asylum for Asia Bibi. And British people are well aware that they have enjoyed rights and freedoms that were hard won over many centuries, and don't like seeing them restricted or removed to accommodate the whims of those we invited to share them.

I'm in favour of immigration. An immigrant should be an asset to the country they move to, and not a burden. I'm an immigrant, and the process of moving to Canada wasn't easy or simple despite the fact I had a qualification and training that no Canadian had to pay for, and was willing to work in a position that no Canadian had been persuaded to accept even after two years' of statutory advertisement. I filled that position for thirty years, and I think Canada got a pretty good deal and Britain lost its investment in my education. Such a calculation makes for an immigration policy that benefits a country, and can be based purely on national interest. It does not have to be, and indeed ought not be,a policy that pays any attention to race or religion. Simply a matter of 'Do you have what we need? Yes - great! Welcome.' We can decry the fact that western countries 'steal' perfectly good engineers and doctors from third-world countries perhaps, but I don't see the woke instructing them that they are not allowed to migrate because their own country needs them more.

Just for fun, and in the interests of beating opponents at their own game, I sometimes imagine the atheist defense to British restrictions on speech. If, as we are told by some many religionists, that atheism is 'just another religion' then we can expect to be allowed to practice our religion unhindered. And what do atheists do? They criticise religion. Let's be ever more devout!

............
We know that continuing population growth is linked to economic growth. If you can't achieve it the old fashioned way, you can simulate it with immigration.
............
I believe the UK government finds itself in an awkward spot as a result. It has to crack down on any expression of dissatisfaction with this situation or face civil unrest. The race riots in Brixton, Toxteth and Broadwater Farm were shocking to the public, and made governments look foolish, disconnected and uncaring in various degrees. And they were the result of anger within the generally well-assimilated and hard-working West Indian immigrant population. What will it look like when unassimilated, more-numerous members of another culture that prefers its own laws and customs riot?

I understand why an economy would need to adapt and change, but why does it need to grow? An economic model that necessitates growth is a broken one AFAIAC because it is doomed to fail eventually.

Let Sadiq Kahn and his Sharia Police have a hissy fit. Let Bradford riot. Britain needs to make up it's mind, enforce respect for British values, freedoms and laws now or succumb to cultural and political takeover. In the words of the inimitable L. Ron Hubbard, "You get what you reward".

The oikophobia explanation for cultural suicide makes a lot of sense to me. It explains the Brexit divide. What is the Remainer cause about but deferring to foreign rule, a contempt for English democratic institutions. What drives mass immigration policies other than a desire to dilute the influence of the British commoner?

I agree, sadly, with the above. Back when we were still having the Ol' Kirbo Walls o' Text about ethnonationalism I asserted that in my opinion Britain was gone. Events ever since have only reinforced that opinion. I'm glad I'm out.

Regarding oikophobia, just a bit of humor to leaven the mood. I was listening to Flanders and Swann last night, and Michael Flanders pointed out the Greek is the only language where they have the same word for stranger and guest, xenos. As in xenophobia, fear and hatred of guests.

............
We know that continuing population growth is linked to economic growth. If you can't achieve it the old fashioned way, you can simulate it with immigration.
............
I believe the UK government finds itself in an awkward spot as a result. It has to crack down on any expression of dissatisfaction with this situation or face civil unrest. The race riots in Brixton, Toxteth and Broadwater Farm were shocking to the public, and made governments look foolish, disconnected and uncaring in various degrees. And they were the result of anger within the generally well-assimilated and hard-working West Indian immigrant population. What will it look like when unassimilated, more-numerous members of another culture that prefers its own laws and customs riot?

I understand why an economy would need to adapt and change, but why does it need to grow? An economic model that necessitates growth is a broken one AFAIAC because it is doomed to fail eventually.

Let Sadiq Kahn and his Sharia Police have a hissy fit. Let Bradford riot. Britain needs to make up it's mind, enforce respect for British values, freedoms and laws now or succumb to cultural and political takeover. In the words of the inimitable L. Ron Hubbard, "You get what you reward".

The oikophobia explanation for cultural suicide makes a lot of sense to me. It explains the Brexit divide. What is the Remainer cause about but deferring to foreign rule, a contempt for English democratic institutions. What drives mass immigration policies other than a desire to dilute the influence of the British commoner?

I used to think the oikophobia explanation was just right-wing hyperbole, but now I think there is something to it. It explains the split in atheism, with the original atheists being motivated by reason/skepticism and the newcomers by oikophobia. It also explains the otherwise odd fact that Islam gets a pass from atheists. PZ is a great example of someone who saw which way the winds were blowing and changed from the original, reason/skeptic approach to the current social justice/oilophobic approach.

Oikophobia also explains the "no borders" idea. If people really believe that the UK and USA are racist/misogynist/transphobic because of Brexit and Trump they would be trying to turn away immigrants to protect them.